Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 293

Thread: System map overhaul needed

  1. #121
    Originally Posted by Obsidian Ant View Post (Source)
    Both the Galaxy Map, as well as an Orrery System map open up so much potential for the game.

    Right now, none of the maps are used anywhere near to their full potential. All manner of data could be portrayed on the galaxy map, along with variety of exploration tools to use. The galaxy map, really could be the starting point for any task within the game...but you are right, it would no doubt require a huge amount of reworking how the map functions. However I can't help but feel the current iterations of all the maps is a massive missed opportunity, they could very easily form the new foundations of the improved game.
    Spot on Sir!

  2. #122
    Originally Posted by Dale Emasiri View Post (Source)
    There's a lot of factors to consider with something like this. What does it really add? I'm not disputing the fact that the orrery view would be immense and show things off in such an awesome way, but it has to be easily usable. There's so much data to show, so many different aspects of the game that need to be/could be visualised to give a greater experience. This is a huge technical challenge not just from a "how do we display the stellar/planetary bodies" angle, but also you have to consider what data would be relevant to explorers, what would be relevant to mission/passenger runners, combat pilots, system states, trading, and so on. There's so much data in the game, and it would be great to show it all. But each thing is a "cost" as far as development, querying the data, system resource, and also screen space. These are only the things that I can think of from the perspective of someone who doesn't really know the first thing about effective UI design, and that's already a tough set of questions to answer...

    I wish I understood the finer points of UX/UI design to really engage in conversation here more... but I don't. Every so often the topic comes up internally and people think a bit more about it, but please don't hate me for setting a realistic expectation: it's an unlikely thing for us to see within the foreseeable future. Just know that I, and probably quite a few others, would love to see this feature in game. Actually, there's a lot of these kinds of features we'd love to see... hence the 'wishlist'.



    A good point. I hadn't even considered this as one of the technical pitfalls.
    That's a bit frustrating. I was really hoping that a real system map would be one of the additions to the core exploration experience. As it stands, the system map we have may as well just be a text list of all the bodies in a given system, as it provides no visual information about the distances in between bodies, where they are in their orbits, their size relative to each other (it does this only to a very minor extent), etc.

    And I agree, you should be smart about what you do, given the limited resources available. Like, a lot smarter. The system map is something that every player in the game uses, so naturally it follows that it should be high on the list of things that deserve attention. Here are some things that significant dev time was spent on that very few players interact with: Powerplay, CQC, and multicrew.

  3. #123
    Originally Posted by Obsidian Ant View Post (Source)
    Both the Galaxy Map, as well as an Orrery System map open up so much potential for the game.

    Right now, none of the maps are used anywhere near to their full potential. All manner of data could be portrayed on the galaxy map, along with variety of exploration tools to use. The galaxy map, really could be the starting point for any task within the game...but you are right, it would no doubt require a huge amount of reworking how the map functions. However I can't help but feel the current iterations of all the maps is a massive missed opportunity, they could very easily form the new foundations of the improved game.
    QFT, the Ant has spoken!

    i start to wonder how hard it really is to code that thing if they wanted to.

  4. #124
    Originally Posted by Obsidian Ant View Post (Source)
    Both the Galaxy Map, as well as an Orrery System map open up so much potential for the game.

    Right now, none of the maps are used anywhere near to their full potential. All manner of data could be portrayed on the galaxy map, along with variety of exploration tools to use. The galaxy map, really could be the starting point for any task within the game...but you are right, it would no doubt require a huge amount of reworking how the map functions. However I can't help but feel the current iterations of all the maps is a massive missed opportunity, they could very easily form the new foundations of the improved game.
    Yeah was what I was thinking.. Sometimes I really do wonder about FD. Its rather obvious to everyone how much more interesting the game could be if certain things were different. They pump out rubbish like PP and a half rate multicrew, re use existing content and create gameplay that consists of grinding busy work. It doesnt need to be like this. I don't get it.

    Are the design team so starved of imagination or is it the funds? One guy made space engine.. Many of the core stuff in game is barebones. Okay, at the time when much of this was done there was limited funds, the game was barely known, but this is not the case now. Apparently there are loads more people working on the game. Not saying they aren't working their socks off but there seems to be little to show for it.

    Perhaps I'm expecting too much. Nevertheless there are so many examples of dev time effort resulting in utter failures, PP, multicrew, and CQC. Why the latter never had elo ranks, seasons, and leagues is hard to understand. It would have been a trivial matter to do such stuff.

    Without dissing the developers I rather turn my eye to the senior staff who are ultimately responsible. No, I dont expect perfection, but its frustrating to see them deliver things that let the game down.

  5. #125
    Originally Posted by Cosmos View Post (Source)
    Yeah was what I was thinking.. Sometimes I really do wonder about FD. Its rather obvious to everyone how much more interesting the game could be if certain things were different. They pump out rubbish like PP and a half rate multicrew, re use existing content and create gameplay that consists of grinding busy work. It doesnt need to be like this. I don't get it.

    Are the design team so starved of imagination or is it the funds? One guy made space engine.. Many of the core stuff in game is barebones. Okay, at the time when much of this was done there was limited funds, the game was barely known, but this is not the case now. Apparently there are loads more people working on the game. Not saying they aren't working their socks off but there seems to be little to show for it.

    Perhaps I'm expecting too much. Nevertheless there are so many examples of dev time effort resulting in utter failures, PP, multicrew, and CQC. Why the latter never had elo ranks, seasons, and leagues is hard to understand. It would have been a trivial matter to do such stuff.

    Without dissing the developers I rather turn my eye to the senior staff who are ultimately responsible. No, I dont expect perfection, but its frustrating to see them deliver things that let the game down.
    Making new map system will take way more efforts than PP or MC. It is just not that simple. CQC was done by 10 people, assets landed in main game too.

    Also calling them utter failures is hyperbole.

  6. #126
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Making new map system will take way more efforts than PP or MC. It is just not that simple. CQC was done by 10 people, assets landed in main game too.

    Also calling them utter failures is hyperbole.
    Might be an idea to read what I wrote. I said some of the features were utter failures, I never suggested anyone was an utter failure. Please keep up.

    I think the best way to put things is that ideas they come up with are implemented to about 80% of what could have been amazing.. That last 20% makes all the difference.

    Oh the assets.. well thats nice, so you can fly around them in the main game. It didnt improve the game in any way. Pointless, and all that dev time of 10 people could have been used far more effectively. Hey, if you love CQC so much then queue up for a game, good luck with the wait. Point being FD seem to have trouble executing otherwise good ideas.

    Its my opinion of course but I think the design team needs some fresh blood.. some new ideas..

  7. #127
    Originally Posted by Obsidian Ant View Post (Source)
    Both the Galaxy Map, as well as an Orrery System map open up so much potential for the game.

    Right now, none of the maps are used anywhere near to their full potential. All manner of data could be portrayed on the galaxy map, along with variety of exploration tools to use...
    For example?

  8. #128
    Originally Posted by Chris Simon View Post (Source)
    For example?
    i would already love to see my own position within the star system,
    showing the traffic between stations on a nice map, with the "trade lanes" beeing highlighted, or the sphere of influence around celestial objects.

    hell, even "war" in a system could be visualized with ease.

  9. #129
    Originally Posted by Chris Simon View Post (Source)
    For example?
    A better USS system would be a good starting point.

  10. #130
    Originally Posted by Bunkerkind Anni View Post (Source)
    i would already love to see my own position within the star system,
    showing the traffic between stations on a nice map, with the "trade lanes" beeing highlighted, or the sphere of influence around celestial objects.

    hell, even "war" in a system could be visualized with ease.
    Well, if you read Dale's earlier post, the "scaled-down version of the actual system" is definitely not gonna happen.
    "Sphere of influence" of faction owned bases is 400km.
    I meant some real gameplay advantages of real orrery map. "It would be cool to have" doesn't count.

    Originally Posted by Max Factor View Post (Source)
    A better USS system would be a good starting point.
    What does it have to do with a map?

  11. #131
    Originally Posted by Dale Emasiri View Post (Source)
    There's a lot of factors to consider with something like this. What does it really add? I'm not disputing the fact that the orrery view would be immense and show things off in such an awesome way, but it has to be easily usable. There's so much data to show, so many different aspects of the game that need to be/could be visualised to give a greater experience. This is a huge technical challenge not just from a "how do we display the stellar/planetary bodies" angle, but also you have to consider what data would be relevant to explorers, what would be relevant to mission/passenger runners, combat pilots, system states, trading, and so on. There's so much data in the game, and it would be great to show it all. But each thing is a "cost" as far as development, querying the data, system resource, and also screen space. These are only the things that I can think of from the perspective of someone who doesn't really know the first thing about effective UI design, and that's already a tough set of questions to answer...

    I wish I understood the finer points of UX/UI design to really engage in conversation here more... but I don't. Every so often the topic comes up internally and people think a bit more about it, but please don't hate me for setting a realistic expectation: it's an unlikely thing for us to see within the foreseeable future. Just know that I, and probably quite a few others, would love to see this feature in game. Actually, there's a lot of these kinds of features we'd love to see... hence the 'wishlist'.



    A good point. I hadn't even considered this as one of the technical pitfalls.
    Sad, orrery would be cool and seems to be a natural addition to ED.

  12. #132
    Originally Posted by Cosmos View Post (Source)

    Oh the assets.. well thats nice, so you can fly around them in the main game. It didnt improve the game in any way. Pointless, and all that dev time of 10 people could have been used far more effectively. Hey, if you love CQC so much then queue up for a game, good luck with the wait. Point being FD seem to have trouble executing otherwise good.
    I really those assets will be used in a mission one day

  13. #133
    Originally Posted by etien View Post (Source)
    I really those assets will be used in a mission one day
    I think that's the idea, yes. Problem is finding the time to get it done.

    Hint, hint

  14. #134
    Originally Posted by Chris Simon View Post (Source)
    Well, if you read Dale's earlier post, the "scaled-down version of the actual system" is definitely not gonna happen.
    "Sphere of influence" of faction owned bases is 400km.
    I meant some real gameplay advantages of real orrery map. "It would be cool to have" doesn't count.
    sure, as much as gameplay advantages the new "search and rescue" screen has added.

    but on a serious note...
    the last tab of the system map, that lists all Ports in the system... why can't that list also list the economy and ruling faction of the station?
    for orbital stations, its just one click to the detail tab (2), but for planetary ports, you have to:
    - click on the planet
    - zoom to the surface map
    - click on the port again
    - click on the detail page

    do that in a system with lots of planets and lots of surface ports...

  15. #135
    While it's a shame that an orrery map isn't happening any time soon, I can understand FDev's reluctance to spend time on this.

    Apart from allowing a slightly easier way to navigate your ship more efficiently when exploring a system, it doesn't offer sufficient value over the existing system map. The only way that FDev could provide more value is to include things like USS locations, POI's, recommended route plotting, etc... But all of these would require a re-working of the core USS/POI generation system, and that increases the complexity by an order of magnitude.

    If people could come up with some solid features that would add real value, then FDev would have a reason to give it higher priority.

    For me, as someone who is primarily an explorer, I would rather FDev spent their time improving the exploration gameplay/features (more/better planets, more POI's, more gameplay) than re-work an existing feature that already works really well.

Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast